Correction: Schaser, Nicholas J. 2021. Israel and the Individual in Matthew and Midrash: Reassessing “True Israel”. Religions 12: 425

There was an error in the original publication (Schaser 2021). A correction has been made to “Jesus-as-Israel in Christian Interpretation”, Paragraph 6. The quotation of Nicholas Piotrowski in paragraph 6 consisted of two quotes separated by an ellipsis, but the phrases were in the wrong order. This has been changed to reflect the correct ordering of the language, along with a necessary change to the pagination in footnote 9:

More recently, Nicholas Piotrowski contends that Matthew presents Jesus and the church as Israel (Piotrowski 2016). In particular, he analyzes Matthew 3:3′s partial citation of Isaiah 40:3—“A voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord; make straight the paths of our God” (Isa 40:3 LXX)—and argues that the Isaian declaration describes divine preparations for Israel’s return from Babylonian exile.⁸ He also notes that Matthew applies the verse to John the Baptist, who proclaims in the Judean wilderness, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt 3:2). Insofar as Jesus presents himself to John for baptism (Matt 3:13), Piotrowski sees Matthew equating Jesus with Isaiah’s Israel in its exodus from Babylon. Therefore, he contends, “[God] makes his appeal through John (Matt 3:2) for the whole nation to respond. It does. Jesus responds… As the first exodus defined who [God’s] people are, so too does this one according to Isaiah. Jesus alone is Israel… and anyone who responds to the same call… becomes Israel through their affiliation with him.”⁹ On this reading, Matthew frames Jesus as the only existing member of Israel and also identifies his followers as Israel, which precludes any conception of “Israel” outside of the Jesus movement.

A correction has been made to “Jesus-as-Israel in Christian Interpretation”, Paragraph 8. The quotation of Piotrowski in Paragraph 8 has been edited with added brackets and ellipses:

While Piotrowski does not present his work as an engagement with post-Shoah Jewish-Christian relations, Perrin suggests that the book might nuance the notion that “the church had radically supplanted Israel as the people of God.” Yet, in his introduction, Piotrowski states, “Matthew introduces his dramatis personae in startling terms: as a newly defined people of God… [Matthew’s] ecclesiological focus… [defines] whom the Christ is… [and] whom the ongoing people of God are.” (Piotrowski 2016, pp. 13–14, emphasis original). There seems to be an ongoing disconnect in contemporary scholarship between post-Shoah sensitivities to anti-Judaism and a continued tendency to see the Christian church as the new Israel—or, at least, an unawareness of the theological problems with the interpretation.

A correction has been made to “Jesus-as-Israel in Christian Interpretation”, Paragraph 9. The paragraph had contained a misattributed quotation that has been deleted. In its place, the author has added one phrase from Patrick Schreiner, which is attributed correctly below:

The Jesus/church-as-Israel reading does not appear to be abating. In a 2019 monograph on Matthew, Patrick Schreiner argues, “Matthew shows that not all Israel is true Israel… [Jesus] is Israel, but the better Israel.” (Schreiner 2019, pp. 230, 239). However, there is no basis in the Gospel for a redefinition that limits the “true Israel” to Jesus and his followers. On the contrary, Matthew never uses “new” or “true” Israel language for the church, so scholars can (and should) retire the terminology.

There was an error in the original publication. A correction has been made to Note 9:

(Piotrowski 2016, pp. 191, 203–4) New David. Why Jesus should need to “respond” to John’s call to “repent” in Matt 3:2 is unclear.

The author states that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.